Summary
In Com. of Pa. ex rel. Suess v. Suess, 100 Pa. Super. 437, it was held, at p. 439: "...... the court is not bound in every instance to order a husband to pay his wife, for her support, one-third of his net income.
Summary of this case from Com. ex Rel. Simmler v. SimmlerOpinion
October 20, 1930.
January 30, 1931.
Husband and wife — Order of support — Adequacy.
In a proceeding by a wife against her husband for an order of support, there was evidence that the defendant was a plumbing and heating contractor and that he had substantial accounts in several banks. It appeared that he had divested himself of his property by gifts to his mother, and had encumbered his real estate with a mortgage or mortgages in her favor. On examination he failed to account for moneys which were received by him and deposited to his credit in the bank and he failed to produce, for the enlightenment of the court below, figures which might have aided it in fixing his earnings. After a patient hearing the defendant was ordered to pay his wife the sum of $25.00 per week.
In such case where the award of the court below was not grossly inadequate, it will be sustained.
A court is not bound in every instance to order a husband to pay to his wife, for her support, one-third of his net income. It may not order him to pay more than that, but may award her less. It has a wide discretion in such matters and unless the amount awarded is on the one hand, more than the law allows, or on the other, grossly inadequate, the Superior Court will not interfere.
Appeal No. 345, October T., 1930, by plaintiff from order of M.C., (Domestic Relations Division) Philadelphia County, April T., 1930, No. 987, in the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ex rel. Dorothy Suess v. Herman O. Suess.
Before TREXLER, P.J., KELLER, LINN, GAWTHROP, CUNNINGHAM and BALDRIGE, JJ. Affirmed.
Petition for order of support. Before LEWIS, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
The court directed the defendant to pay his wife the sum of $25 per week. Plaintiff appealed.
Error assigned was the order of the court.
Samuel Moyerman, for appellant.
Seymour M. Heilbron, for appellee.
Argued October 20, 1930.
A careful review of the evidence in this record does not lead us to place much reliance on the testimony of the respondent, the appellee. He was flippant, evasive, contemptuous of the court and untruthful. He refused to answer questions which he should have answered; he failed to account for moneys which were received by him and deposited to his credit in bank; he divested himself of his property by gifts to his mother, and encumbered his real estate with a mortgage or mortgages in her favor. He was a plumbing and heating contractor; admitted that he kept books of account of his business but produced none in court. He had made report of his income for the year 1929 to the federal government but presented none of its figures for the enlightenment of the court. He had five accounts in three banks, — three checking and two savings accounts — in which there were large deposits and considerable withdrawals, some of which were not satisfactorily explained. The moneys to his credit in the Drexel Hill Title Trust Co., between February 21, 1929 and January 23, 1930, amounted to $24,877.25. Checks against this fund were apparently drawn in the sum of $24,346.49. He produced a large batch of checks which, both he and his then attorney said, covered all these withdrawals, but, being summed up by this court they amount to only $11,905.24, leaving $12,441.25 unaccounted for. The court below, after a patient hearing, interfered with somewhat by the voluminous calendar to be disposed of, ordered him to pay his wife, the appellant, the sum of twenty-five dollars per week. He might with propriety have allowed her more. Had he awarded her $35 to $40 a week, we would not have interfered with it, as being unsupported by the evidence. But the lower court has a wide discretion in such matters and unless the amount awarded is, on the one hand, more than the law allows, or on the other, grossly inadequate, we will not interfere. The court may have been influenced by the business depression and inactivity in building, which it was testified had seriously affected respondent's current receipts and income; and the order is, of course, subject to increase or modification as circumstances permit or require. But in any event, the court is not bound in every instance to order a husband to pay to his wife, for her support, one-third of his net income. It may not order him to pay more than that, but may award her less. We are not satisfied that in the circumstances here present the judge who presided at the hearing abused the discretion committed to him in the amount of the award to the appellant.
But in view of the respondent's action in divesting himself of his property and placing it where it could not be conveniently reached or attached in case of his failure to obey the court's order, we are of opinion that he should have been required to enter bail absolute with legal security to be approved by the court in a sum sufficient to cover at least one full year's payments under the order.
We will accordingly modify the order, and remit the record with directions that the court below order and require the respondent, Herman O. Suess, to enter into a recognizance with legal security to be approved by that court, in the sum of thirteen hundred dollars, conditioned for his faithful compliance with the order of court aforesaid, and that he be committed until the order as modified be complied with.
Costs on this appeal, and in the court below, to be paid by the respondent, Herman O. Suess.